Okay, I understand the DxO ratings are for sensors, not the total image processing package, but does it strike anyone else here as odd that the scores for both the G3 and GH2 sensors don't rank as high as the GH1?

Assuming these ratings are correct, does the G3 give better results completely because of improvements to the jpg engine? I'm not a pixel-peeper, but it seems a sub-$300 GH1 might be a better deal than we realize.

No, the ranking does not seem strange. First, DxO does not rate the JPEG image, only RAW unprocessed data off the sensor. So the JPEG processing among cameras can be very different. Second, the results are close. Most people will not see the difference and the JPEGs can erase that gap. If you look at the specs for the GH1, you will see it has a bigger pixel pitch which makes the pixel more efficient--a larger area collects more light and hence better signal. So that is not a surprise.

When it was released, the GH1 has an excellent reputation for image quality. Nothing in that regard has changed. And the GH2 has an equal reputation. The DxO results don't change that either. All are fine cameras.

Assuming these ratings are correct, does the G3 give better results completely because of improvements to the jpg engine? I'm not a pixel-peeper, but it seems a sub-$300 GH1 might be a better deal than we realize.

Click to expand...

Completely, I don't know. But generally, yes: it's the price for going from 12 to 16 MP without a deep change in technology.
It can be circumvened. See what Nikon did of Sony's 24 MP sensor base, and what Sony-Minolta did. The D3x vs... what, in the end?
The engineers know it. Some at Panasonic were quoted to regret it. The marketing rules.
The good thing about private labs, like DxO, is they don't listen as much to the press releases as to their own data. Different tune...

Why do you think I recently applauded to the rumour of Oly's E-P3 sticking to a 12MP sensor, if they can improve its basics? Same I'd prefer a 120 HP Lotus to a 2-tons sluggish musclecar.

Okay, I understand the DxO ratings are for sensors, not the total image processing package, but does it strike anyone else here as odd that the scores for both the G3 and GH2 sensors don't rank as high as the GH1?

Assuming these ratings are correct, does the G3 give better results completely because of improvements to the jpg engine? I'm not a pixel-peeper, but it seems a sub-$300 GH1 might be a better deal than we realize.

The one aspect of GH1 sensor image quality which DxOmark completely misses is pattern noise in shadows. This limits how much one can push shadows without apparent banding, and means that the GH1 dynamic range is for practical purposes less than indicated by the DxOmark published results.

For this reason, I would give a clear edge to the GH2 sensor, which has strong resistance to pattern noise in shadows, over the GH1 sensor.

The one aspect of GH1 sensor image quality which DxOmark completely misses is pattern noise in shadows. This limits how much one can push shadows without apparent banding, and means that the GH1 dynamic range is for practical purposes less than indicated by the DxOmark published results.

For this reason, I would give a clear edge to the GH2 sensor, which has strong resistance to pattern noise in shadows, over the GH1 sensor.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Amin. This makes a lot of sense and is helpful. I've been wrestling with the choice of buying a deeply discounted GH1 now or waiting a bit and opting for one of the new Panasonic "3" cameras or even a GH2.

Links in this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.